I see that you are uploading very beautiful images from the site [1], owned by... Bruce Marlin. Are you the same person ? Because there is a problem. The copyright text of that site clearly says that the images are not be used in commercial sites. Wikipedia is clearly non-commercial, but it is being copied by numerous other websites, providing commercial banners. Therefore all images, downloaded from websites with a non-commercial copyright will be deleted. Unless you state that you own that website and clearly state (e.g. in a new page User:Bruce Marlin/copyrights that you release images from that webwite as {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. See also Commons:Copyright tags. JoJan 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Yes, I'm the same Bruce Marlin. I own the copyrights and the website and I'm the original author of every image I u/l to wikimedia commoms. The images I upload for use on Wikimedia and Wikipedia are intended to be {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. 5 and I'm making an effort to label them as such when I upload. The images at my website still retain their own CC noncommercial attribution license. Does that not work?Bruce Marlin 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. As long as you clearly state with each image that, contrary to the guidelines of your website, you release these images under {{cc-by-ca-2.5}}, and that you own these images. To avoid repeating the same text with each new image, you can put that text on a new subpage of your own user page and each time, when uploading a new image, refer to that subpage. Such authorisations have been given before by others : see Commons:Authorization to use material from http://www.larsen-twins.dk. This person in particular provided us with mere than one hundred photos of orchids, that would have been almost impossible to get otherwise and now illustrate orchid articles in many wikipedias all over the world. What better reward can you get knowing that in more than a hundred years your photos will still be seen by a huge number of readers. Good luck. JoJan 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just found out that you are an esteemed amateur entomologist and macro photographer (excellent photos indeed). I invite you to join our dedicated group of (amateur or professional) biologists at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life (en.wikipedia). We certainly could use another entomologist. Read the article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage. And with copy and paste you can get already a long way, if those guidelines are too much. JoJan 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, thank you for adding your excellent and unique material to Wikimedia Commons. I'd like to as you to reconsider your upload strategy because of the following. Almost all of the images you have uploaded have been visibly tagged in the binary image with either a website name or your family name and a year in which the photographs was taken. Because of this, all images concerned have been tagged with {{watermark}}.

This could mean that somewhere in the future the original image will be overwritten with a version in which the watermark has been removed. As I see that your uploads do not use EXIF to attribute and tag, I would like to suggest that you take a look at tagging in that manner (too). This can be done with (some) image editors and also in batch with some tools. Ideally you would upload high resolution images without a physical watermark containing all relevant license, source and author information in EXIF tags. Thank you for your consideration, Siebrand 10:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Siebrand, I have been absent for some time and did not see this before today. I don't know to what watermark you are refering. Please explain? Thanks. Bruce Marlin

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have just deleted Gledtisia caspica as it had no gallery of images, just text. This means that it's out of scope for Commons. Feel free to recreate the page if you have images to add. Kind regards, Deadstar (msg) 08:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bruce. your picture was published in a famous daily in India MalayalaManorama without giving any credit to you. I have seen the picture befire and thats how I came to know. please contact the newspaper authirity and do what you can. this kind of attitudes should not be allowed to groom.

Hi Bruce - I changed to rowan because that is better understood internationally, being unique (nothing else is called the same), and with easily recognised cognates in many other languages (e.g. røn, rönn, rogn, reynir, raun, royn). Conversely, calling it an 'ash' is misleading and promotes confusuion; most people understand that English plant name as meaning Fraxinus. Bear in mind that what is done in the US only covers a very small percentage of mankind, and has no right to primacy. Of "changing the format of hyperlinks", see Commons:Categories for why I added category tags; they should not be removed without good reason (e.g. if placed in the wrong category). - MPF 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How sure are you about the ID on this image of "Porcellio scaber"?? Did you actually check the "lungs" on the pleopods? Personally, just from looking at the picture, based on colour/patterns, I would much sooner have it down for Trachelipus rathkii?! Any better images available of the head/antennae, or even ventral shots?? Cheers, Pudding4brains 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

for our student textbook about Charles Darwin we want to use your nice photo of the giant Ichneumon megarhssa atrata. We kindly ask you for permission to use your photo. Of course your name appears in the list of figures together with a hint of the licence conditions. With best regards Paul

for our student textbook about Charles Darwin (Die Entstehung der Arten, illustrated and commented by Paul Wrede and Saskia Wrede) we kindly ask you for permission to use the coloured photo of the Ichneumon insect.

Our book will be published in German by VCH-Wiley. It is addressed to beginners in biology like students or highly educated laymen. Publication will be December 2012.

Those wishing to use any of the images credited to me (Bruce Marlin) on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, please refer to the licensing of the individual photo in question. The Creative Commons licenses I use are a well-known vehicle with clear and unambiguous requirements: Creative Commons: About the Licenses.

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

You didn't provide any valid reason for a DR. This is a file description for a picture, not a user page. May be you intended to request a DR somewhere else? PS: You can answer me here, using {{ping}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: Oh. I was referring to an unknown uploader. Is the source of the image not important? Bruce Marlin (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Like 99% of our users, his acount ID is just a pseudonym . The image is small, but it was uploaded in 2008 and has EXIF metadata. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. After someone drew my attention to it, I can confirm their contention that the original images at http://www.cirrusimage.com/hymenoptera_ichneumon_megarhyssa_fem.htm were correctly IDed as greenei, but the uploaded file at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Megarhyssa_macrurus_female.jpg is IDed as macrurus. The original uncropped images show an ovipositor much less than 2x the body length (and relatively limited forewing maculation), which matches greenei rather than macrurus. I have done some "damage control" (changing captions to correctly read greenei in numerous places) but the continued use of a filename containing "Megarhyssa_macrurus" is confusing, and people using the image (and there are LOTS) are going to keep thinking that it really is macrurus. Nothing urgent, but maybe changing the file name would help get things straightened out - yes, it would break many links, but then these links could be replaced with a genuine macrurus photo. Dyanega (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)